SONY AF 35mm f/1.8 SAM

[DonSchap]

Overheard in the store, next to the SONY counter: "Man, I am so confused ... what good is the new DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM over the 30mm f/2.8 MACRO?"

Answer (the long one): When you place a lens on an APS-C sensor DSLR (e.g,, a100, a200-series, a300-series, a400-series {European release}, a500-series, or the noble a700) the lens has an effective look of 1.5x the lens' focal length.

Doing the math: 35mm x 1.5 = 53mm

So, if someone were to shoot the very same subject, with a full frame camera, using a 53mm lens on it, the frame would look identical toi that of the APS-C sensor DSLR with the 35mm mounted on it.

Here's the sad part, because the DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM is an APS-C only lens ... if you were to place it on the a850/a900 Full Frame DSLR, it automatically triggers the "APS-C Capture mode" and you get an effective 53mm image on it, too. There is no cheating to be had, here. IT'S NEVER GOING TO LOOK LIKE A 35mm SHOT.

The argument is, most photographers were quite happy with their 50mm f/1.7 shots on their older Minolta Maxxum film cameras. When they went to APS-C DSLRs, though, that same 50mm lens ... through the digital cropping factor (1.5x), was now looking like a 75mm f/1.7 lens. As you can imagine, they had to back themselves up to get the same framing a 50mm full frame shot had. By using this new 35mm f/1.8 lens, they can get back to their more traditional framing, that they enjoyed with the previous film camera.

That's the explanation.

SONY also makes a very pricy Full Frame AF 35mm f/1.4 G lens. At $1300, it's far and away beyond the pocket change most of us carry around. The thing of it is ... it gives a TRUE 35mm frame ... and does not trigger the Full Frame DSLR's APS-C Capture mode. Call it the price of going Full Frame, I suppose, and wanting that wide shot, with an f/1.4 bokeh to it.

Were does the DT 30mm f/2..8 MACRO fit it. Well, it is a DT lens, too. The same reasoning applies between it and the AF 50mm f/2.8 MACRO. Too long on the smaller sensor, for the old guard. These lens were 50mm (not 75mm) for a good reason: it is a more practical focal length for the bulk of the work.

Thus endeth the lesson.

[OsmosisStudios]

Putting any 35mm lens on an APS-C body gives you a x1.5 multiplier. The crop factor is inherent to the sensor, not the fact that the lens was/was not designed for the smaller sensor.

SO
Putting a 35mm full-frame sensor on an APS-C sensor gives an effective FoV similar to that of a 53mm lens on full frame.
AND
Putting a 35mm DT ("designed for digital") lens on an APS-C sensor gives an effective FoV similar to that of a 53mm lens on full frame.

Thus endeth the lesson

[DonSchap]

The thing I am trying to point out, here, is that if you are shooting a Full Frame camera ... and already have a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 RS or SONY SAL 50mm f/1.4 lens ... buying the SONY SAL DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM and putting it on the Full Frame will result in getting relatively the same image.

Also ... because the Full Frame DSLR goes into "crop mode" with the DT 35mm f/1.8 SAM, the resolution changes to 11MP, instead of the awesome 24.6MP, so you get a smaller working image.

It's all fun, eh?

[OsmosisStudios]

So, what you're telling me is that this thread is pointless because people already know all that then.

[DonSchap]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

So, what you're telling me is that this thread is pointless because people already know all that then.

As a fellow student of photography, I have found that you are rather foolish to assume that anyone knows anything about anything. The so-called "silent masses" are often only silent in "amazement" rather than in "Oh, I knew that, Osmo!" They read the results, process it, and then move on, not interacting with the OP in any reactive way at all.

The fact is, if you take the typical bloke off the street or even the typical photography student and ask them to explain the difference between Full Frame and APS-C sensor technology ... they would probably just push by you, tell you where to put your APS_C/Full Frame thing-a -ma-jig and get back to texting their buddies.

Once in a great while, an interested soul will read this information and actually learn something new.

Then again, YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT!

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by DonSchap

The fact is, if you take the typical bloke off the street or even the typical photography student and ask them to explain the difference between Full Frame and APS-C sensor technology ... they would probably just push by you, tell you where to put your APS_C/Full Frame thing-a -ma-jig and get back to texting their buddies.

(...)

Once in a great while, an interested soul will read this information and actually learn something new.

1st point:
How very condescending of you. You're making huge blanket assumptions about a hypothetical group of people you cant possibly know about, and are attempting to pass it off as fact of argument to persuade me. That's just plain dumb.

2nd point:
The problem is that this information is already readily available in a myriad of places. Simply typing "what is crop factor" into google gives the answer in plain english without the rhetoric, condescension, and flat-out uselessness of your original post.

Then again, you already knew that.

[DonSchap]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

1st point:
How very condescending of you. You're making huge blanket assumptions about a hypothetical group of people you cant possibly know about, and are attempting to pass it off as fact of argument to persuade me. That's just plain dumb.

2nd point:
The problem is that this information is already readily available in a myriad of places. Simply typing "what is crop factor" into google gives the answer in plain english without the rhetoric, condescension, and flat-out uselessness of your original post.

Then again, you already knew that.

Implying that I am being condescending about a factual state of the art seems rather silly. It is what it is ... and the rudeness implied with texting cannot be disputed and it is hardly hypothetical. Despite the fact that it is rapidly becoming a way of life, for many, it still is a moronic, self-indulgent way to conduct yourself and your non-emergent business. I can think of nothing less important than flag-waving to your distant pal in the middle of a conversation with someone else (you are physically with) or while you are supposed to be doing something else (like work). This kind of behavior simply did not go on, ten years ago. If you received a page ... you read it and then away it went. If a call needed to be made, you excused yourself or waited for a suitable break. You did not immediately pound away with your thumbs on a little keyboard, diverting your attention from the task at hand, and indulging yourself at the expense of someone else's time. That's nasty.

I see this happening more and more and more (ad nauseum) and less and less getting done in the provided time for the real task at hand. This rather "unprofessional" and typically rude behavior will be the doom of many. It is only a matter of time ... and inattention. In my experience, at work, it loses you customers. They simply will not tolerate it ... nor should they have to. Return customers are the mainstay of many businesses. I would surmise that "firing" an employee for this kind of behavior is well within the rights of an employer. Its tolerance is simply being lazy about maintaining proper decorum and direction.

"DON'T BE PERPLEXED, JUST DON'T TEXT."

You have been warned.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by DonSchap

Implying that I am being condescending about a factual state of the art seems rather silly. It is what it is ... and the rudeness implied with texting cannot be disputed and it is hardly hypothetical. Despite the fact that it is rapidly becoming a way of life, for many, it still is a moronic, self-indulgent way to conduct yourself and your non-emergent business. I can think of nothing less important than flag-waving to your distant pal in the middle of a conversation with someone else (you are physically with) or while you are supposed to be doing something else (like work). This kind of behavior simply did not go on, ten years ago. If you received a page ... you read it and then away it went. If a call needed to be made, you excused yourself or waited for a suitable break. You did not immediately pound away with your thumbs on a little keyboard, diverting your attention from the task at hand, and indulging yourself at the expense of someone else's time. That's nasty.

I see this happening more and more and more (ad nauseum) and less and less getting done in the provided time for the real task at hand. This rather "unprofessional" and typically rude behavior will be the doom of many. It is only a matter of time ... and inattention. In my experience, at work, it loses you customers. They simply will not tolerate it ... nor should they have to. Return customers are the mainstay of many businesses. I would surmise that "firing" an employee for this kind of behavior is well within the rights of an employer. Its tolerance is simply being lazy about maintaining proper decorum and direction.

"DON'T BE PERPLEXED, JUST DON'T TEXT."

You have been warned.

What did you actually just say there? There's a TON of talking, but nothing actually being said.

And what am I being warned of? and by whom? you?

*strolls along normally*

[DonSchap]

Ever wonder what goes through your mind, when you get a bad cell signal to your cell phone during a phone call? Yeah, a couple magnitudes of radiation, as the phone is ordered by the cell tower to transmit harder (increase transmission power). This happens inside buildings, parking lots, almost anyplace where something substantial gets between you and that cellular tower. Of course, you never see or sense this INCREASE in power, but it goes out of the handset ... right through your brain, as you press the thing against your ear. You might say, "Poor reception will kill ya." <- You have been warned.

Well, when it comes to texting, that is not the case. Now, you are distracted in ways you may not have counted on. Suddenly, as you walking along, you are not paying attention (fully) and life goes on, whether you are aware of it OR NOT. The scariest part, is when people text and try to try images at the same time. I mean to tell you, now that is "trick photography."

Unfortunately, this entire lens commentary got derailed and is off-topic.

The SONY DT AF 35mm f/1.8 SAM is a gift to APS-C users... and should not be confused by Full Frame shooters. It is to the APS-C dslr shooter what the Minolta AF50mm f/1.7 is to the Full Frame cameras. Although this lens will happily mount on a Full Frame dslr... it can only provide an effective 53mm image, not a 35mm image, no matter what it says. The FF camera, through its logic, defaults to the APS-C capture mode, even though you see a vignetted 35mm frame in your viewfinder. Personally, this seems a bit deceptive and unfortunate in its own way. On an FF dslr, it is also hard to frame your image with this, when you cannot visually detect the boundaries of the lens and only 2/3rds of what you see is actually being captured.

[S3000]

Thanks for explaning this Don. I got the Sony 16-80mm carl Zeiss lens and I supose the same will happen if I put this lens on a A900?